Divine revelation

[shunyadragon]

I would caution people about things like this. Wikipedia (or blogs, for that matter) are not always the best place to become informed on people's views, unless its the views of the person who wrote the wikipedia article or blog. If you wanna know about presuppositionalism, check out some works by presuppositionalists. They're full of refutations of misunderstandings of presuppositionalism.
To start off I would recommend reading The Ultimate Proof of Creation, by Dr. Jason Lisle, or Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, by Dr. Greg Bahsnen (or at least Bahnsen's standard work, Always Ready).

The bottom line is

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

. . . presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the truth of Christianity and the non-truth of other worldviews.

© Copyright Original Source

This is the reason why future dialogue is fruitless.

[NormATive]

God is truine. Jesus is the second person of the trinitarian Godhead. Thus Jesus is God. I would have thought such a smart man as you would know that.

On what do you base this "theory?" I only refer to the scriptures dictated to Moses by G-d, the same G-d Jesus of Nazareth worshiped.

If you're gonna be as arbitrary as that, then I'll do the same until you start taking this convo seriously.

I am taking it seriously. You are basing ALL of your knowledge on a non-Canonical book.

Jesus is God. It's just a fact. I base it on the the writings that God inspired Jesus' disciples to write down, and thus is the Word of God. It needs no argument.

On what basis do you make that claim? The G-d of Jesus says otherwise. It says so in the scriptures dictated to Moses by G-d.

The first Person of the Godhead (the Father) did not come down and add a human nature onto His divine nature, but the second Person of the Godhead (the Son) did.

Yes, this is a popular theory by those who fell away from the True faith.

NORM

[Mr. Black]

There is nothing new in the discussion here.

Are you absolutely certain of this?

Your asserting a presuppositional argument precludes any serious debate because of its stone wall approach to any alternatice beliefs,

I'm totally open to hearing your reply to my argument, but you don't want to do that. You've begged the question and knocked down straw men, and have never touched the transcendental argument. If your worldview and arguments had any substance you could have already refuted my argument a long time ago by demonstrating that knowledge is possible apart from God.

There is basically nothing else to say.

There's plenty you can say. How's about, "Lord, I repent of my sins. My thinking is absurd without you, and my guilt for breaking your Holy Law cannot be washed away by good deeds, and thus I have double the need for You. Please forgive me, and save me from the absurdity I've chosen, and the justice I deserve"?

The bottom line is

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

. . . presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the truth of Christianity and the non-truth of other worldviews.

© Copyright Original Source

This is the reason why future dialogue is fruitless.

You left out the beginning of the quote in this straw man attack. I'll supply the quote in full and reply. It reads...

"Critics of presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the truth of Christianity and the non-truth of other worldviews."

And this is just the kind of nonsensical misunderstanding of presupp that was refuted in presupp literature decades ago. A couple definitions are in order.

1.) Principle: a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:
2.) Theorem: Logic. a proposition that can be deduced from the premises or assumptions of a system.

Anyone who's familiar with transcendental arguments knows that they argue for starting point principles, whereas deductive arguments work to build up to a theorem. Thus the criticism here displays the critics' naivete as they've confused the transcendental argument utilized in presupp with deductive arguments by asserting that it "begs the question" by starting with Christianity rather than building up to concluding with it. Starting points is the very subject at issue in TAs, not theorems.

[Mr. Black]

I am taking it seriously. You are basing ALL of your knowledge on a non-Canonical book.

I'm glad to hear that you're taking it seriously. Please provide an argument for your claims.

[Mr. Black]

I recognize two kinds of probability. One kind is established by statistical analysis of empirical data (including observations of nature without doing designed experiments); the other kind is estimating probabilities using one's "common sense" and experience. I think you mean the latter kind.

Correct. The 1st would apply as well though.

Just click on the link
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post97662
A new window or tab will open up at the post in question. Bear in mind that after clinking, you will have two windows or tabs with TWeb in them.

Thanks. I'll reply in the other thread.

[NormATive]

I'm glad to hear that you're taking it seriously. Please provide an argument for your claims.

I've already done that. You have no response?

NORM

[Mr. Black]

I've already done that.

Really? Where? Last time I asked you for an argument you said...

No argument. It's just a fact. I base it on the Tanakh, which is the same scripture Jesus believed to be the Word of G-d. It needs no argument.

You've posted one reply since then, but as far as I can tell there's no argument in it. Perhaps you can point out where in that reply your argument is and unpack it for me?

[NormATive]

Perhaps you can point out where in that reply your argument is and unpack it for me?

You will have to read back a little further. Wherein I ask you by what basis do you pretend to know anything about G-d? I presume it is the Christian Testament and theories of men (trinitarianism). But, you have yet to affirm this supposition.

You know dang well (too many demerits from the high school language police!) where I asked that! Quit stalling!

I'll await your reply.

NORM

[Mr. Black]

I ask you by what basis do you pretend to know anything about G-d?

This is the fallacy of complex question (loaded question), as it contains an assumption that's false. Thus it should be devided in two...

1.) Do I merely "pretend" to know about God?
2.) if so, by what basis?

The answer to the first question is no, so the second question isn't needed.
Had you paid attention you would have noticed that I actually did answer your question already in the other thread. I know things about God for certain based on His revelation to mankind, both in nature and His written Word.

Notice also, that when you frame the question in that way, "by what basis do you pretend to know anything about G-d?" you've made an indirect knowledge claim: that I'm merely pretending. The burden of proof for that assumption is upon you. On what basis do you make such a claim?

[NormATive]

I know things about God for certain based on His revelation to mankind, both in nature and His written Word.

You have still not defined this "Word." The only "Word of G-d" is that dictated to Moses. All others are the writings of men. So, again, I ask you: from where do you derive your authority?

And, as you have said previous; one cannot know "nature" without a proper understanding of G-d.

NORM

[Mr. Black]

You have still not defined this "Word."

I believe I have. The Word of God is all that which is inspired by God and written down and preserved through the ages, comprising the Old and New Testaments. I've said this already, and am not sure how I could be any clearer. Perhaps you can tell me precisely what it is that you're looking for in this definition?

The only "Word of G-d" is that dictated to Moses. All others are the writings of men.

On what basis do you make such a claim?

So, again, I ask you: from where do you derive your authority?

I don't have authority. All authority belongs to Christ (Matthew 28:18). The authority of the New Testament is dirved from the God Who inspired the New Testament writers to scribe that Word.

And, as you have said previous; one cannot know "nature" without a proper understanding of G-d.

How true. And all men know God to such a degree that they are without excuse for their rejection of Him (Romans 1:18-22).

[NormATive]

...comprising the Old and New Testaments.

Ah, just as I suspected. You are a devotee of the apocryphal writings of the Christian Testament. There's your problem.

Quote Originally Posted by NormATive View Post
The only "Word of G-d" is that dictated to Moses. All others are the writings of men.

On what basis do you make such a claim?

Not a claim. 'Tis the truth. The Hebrew language was invented by G-d. So, it was impossible for men to have written it (like your Christian Testament - which is written in the language of men).

The authority of the New Testament is dirved (sic) from the God Who inspired the New Testament writers to scribe that Word.

The Christian Testament is the handiwork of man - something you have repeatedly asserted is not to be trusted. Why do you trust the works of man? What was wrong with the Word of G-d in the Pentateuch? The philosopher you worship was a devotee of those words.

NORM

[Mr. Black]

Not a claim. 'Tis the truth.

You've confused action with a state of affairs. A claim can have the property of being true, but no claim is truth itself (otherwise no other claims would be true)

The Hebrew language was invented by G-d. So, it was impossible for men to have written it (like your Christian Testament - which is written in the language of men).

A couple points here.

1.) This begs the question, as it assumes that God is not the Lord of all history, and therefore did not have a hand in the creation (and continual upholding) of Koine Greek.
2.) This doesn't follow. Even if God had no hand in the creation of Greek He is not so weak that He cannot use it to adequately send a message undistorted to His creatures.



[QUOTE=NormATive;99651]The Christian Testament is the handiwork of man - something you have repeatedly asserted is not to be trusted.[QUOTE=NormATive;99651]

Fallacy of begging the question. No one disputes that men physically scribed the New Testament. But to say that, because men physically scribed it, therefore it was merely men who authored it, and not God.

Why do you trust the works of man? What was wrong with the Word of G-d in the Pentateuch? The philosopher you worship was a devotee of those words

Fallacy of complex question again. This, too, needs to be divided.

1.) Do I trust the works of mere man regarding eternal life?
2.) If so, why?

the answer to the first is no, so the second question isn't needed.

On what basis do you say the NT is merely the works of men?

[NormATive]

On what basis do you say the NT is merely the works of men?

The fact that it was actually written by men. We even know their names!

NORM

[Mr. Black]

The fact that it was actually written by men. We even know their names!

This is not an answer to my question. No one is claiming that men did not physically write down the text. But your claim is that such writing was merely on their initiative, and not inspired by God. On what basis do you make that claim?